WARNER ROBBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER DESERT SHIELD/STORM AFTER ACTION

File: aabvb_02.txt
Page: 02
Total Pages: 30
                                  Desert Shield/Storm After Action Report

         1. WR-ALC/FM Comments:

       a. Keep communications in as few channels as possible, e.g., HQ wanted
       BSMS used when possible even though WWMCCS provided broader access to the
       world. If BSMS is ever going to be a truly useful system, it must he
       expanded first within AFLC (at-least all control centers should have a
       - terminal) and then to other commands.

        b. Provide taskings in written form. There were occasions when the HQ
        Battle Staff verbally tasked the product directorates (through the WR-BS) to
        respond to certain logistics questions. Problems would arise in
        interpretation, lack of language compatibility, inconsistency in responses
        and inconsistent guidance to the directorates when they called HQ for
        clarification. Invariably, verbal tasking results in poor products
        (responses) to the requester add vested time on both finds. A verbal tasking
        is okay as a starting point when time is crucial, but should be followed up
        in Waiting to assure the tasking is well thought out, logical, reasonable,
        and possible. 

        c. Assure ALCs receive Command SITREPs and LOGSTATs (MAC, TAC, CENTCOM,
        etc.). These were invaluable to SPMs in their efforts to aggressively
       support their weapon systems.
       d. Continue the policy of AFLC providing "command-wide" 24-hour
        coverage through WWMCCS when the activity level is low, e.g., toward the end
        of the Phase I and II deployments as well as with the ARCS increasing to
        24-hour coverage during the high activity level times, e.g., start of
     deployments and during actual fighting.

        en KIT ~ Ps provided good crossfeed on other ALCs' status and problems.
        We need to be more sensitive to when to reduce the frequency. During Phase
        I and II deployments, there was a rush of activity as items were surged to
        support deploying units. Frequent status changes made a daily SITREP
        worthwhile. However, after the initial fill of requisitions, status changes
        were less significant as the tougher to fill requirements took longer to
        complete. Thus, the daily SITREP reflected "no change." Reducing the
        reporting frequency would bare saved much time on both ends without any
        significant loss of support status information. .

        f. Command and Control tasks were overall very effective and rated as
        follows:

        (1) WWMCCS - A+. Reliability excellent, connectivity to the world
        great. The best way to communicate.

              (2) BSMS - B. Reliability good but connectivity lacking both intra 
AFLC and-inter command.  Needs expansion to be worth keeping.